[han]

What mikeh and awm said.

[OleBerg]

 mikeh, on 2010-October-25, 21:06, said:

While all the bidders are looking at their hand and, in essence, arguing that they have unexpected values, I am more accustomed to players who listen to the opps make a single raise and a, presumably, preemptive re-raise and reason that their partner has more than zero hcp.

Thus, while partner is not an idiot, and thus doesn't expect to go down more than 1 in 4♣ if he catches an unsuitable dummy, I don't think he has to have 10 tricks or even 9 sure tricks in his hand. he is entitled to play us for a modicum of strength, and he can legitimately hope for more than a stiff club (altho it is the 10).

I expect to make 4♣. I won't be surprised if we make 5, but I would consider it to be against the odds, and so would let him play in the partscore.

I also think that raising smacks of hanging partner.....if he is, as I hope, a good player who has taken a calculated risk in order to not sell out to -140, I would hate to turn his good call into a minus and boot the 7 imps he'd won for us (and maybe losing an additional couple when they double, which they are far more apt to do at game than at a partscore). That wouldn't bother me if I felt 11 tricks were 40% or better, but I don't.

Now, if partner is not the type of player I assume: especially if he is the type who needs ALL his values to bid, I'd raise...but I don't play with that type.

Well put.

[Fluffy]

 han, on 2010-October-26, 00:14, said:

What mikeh and awm said.

What about what I said?

[han]

I usually skip your posts.

[bucky]

 mikeh, on 2010-October-25, 21:06, said:

While all the bidders are looking at their hand and, in essence, arguing that they have unexpected values, I am more accustomed to players who listen to the opps make a single raise and a, presumably, preemptive re-raise and reason that their partner has more than zero hcp.

Thus, while partner is not an idiot, and thus doesn't expect to go down more than 1 in 4♣ if he catches an unsuitable dummy, I don't think he has to have 10 tricks or even 9 sure tricks in his hand. he is entitled to play us for a modicum of strength, and he can legitimately hope for more than a stiff club (altho it is the 10).

I expect to make 4♣. I won't be surprised if we make 5, but I would consider it to be against the odds, and so would let him play in the partscore.

I also think that raising smacks of hanging partner.....if he is, as I hope, a good player who has taken a calculated risk in order to not sell out to -140, I would hate to turn his good call into a minus and boot the 7 imps he'd won for us (and maybe losing an additional couple when they double, which they are far more apt to do at game than at a partscore). That wouldn't bother me if I felt 11 tricks were 40% or better, but I don't.

Now, if partner is not the type of player I assume: especially if he is the type who needs ALL his values to bid, I'd raise...but I don't play with that type.

Well said. Raising on this hand is taking a huge position.

[mfa1010]

I think mikeh sums it up very nicely.

1♠-2♠-3♠ is not a frightening sequence and partner can sensibly play us for something, which is what we have but not more. There will typically be a hole in the club suit and having only a singleton is a liability since we risk 4-1 offside and getting whacked in 5♣.

We could raise if partner's aggression factor is <= 3 or something like that.

[Cascade]

Thanks for the opinions.

Partner's hand was:

---

Should partner have done more?

There seem to be quite a lot of losers for a vulnerable leap to 5♣ but maybe that is too pessimistic.

I did not annotate it earlier but I think the 3♠ raise on the actual table auction was intended as invitational.

[bucky]

At this vulnerability, I would just bid 5♣ initially. Sure we could miss (grand) slam if partner has the right cards, but with 12 cards in minors, I don't expect we have all the room to constructively bid to slam anyway.

[mike777]

no partner cannot hv a 3 loser hand and a void in spades and bid like this.
---


(1s)=x(no prblem yet)( close second choice 5c..never 2c)

[mfa1010]

 Cascade, on 2010-October-26, 19:10, said:

Thanks for the opinions.

Partner's hand was:

---

Should partner have done more?

There seem to be quite a lot of losers for a vulnerable leap to 5♣ but maybe that is too pessimistic.

I did not annotate it earlier but I think the 3♠ raise on the actual table auction was intended as invitational.

5♣ first time.
What was his thinking? That the hand was too good for an immediate 5♣ and therefore it was better to bid 2♣ then 4♣ after some nonscary bidding by the opps? Or?

[No_Duck]

One thing is sure, my partner has 4 losers and not 3, because with 10 he had bet 5♣

1/ Do I cover ONE or TWO loosers ?
more than one but not 2

2/ how many total tricks on the board?
only 18 and if it is 19 (my partner has 9 clubs) it is not good enough

3/ Do I expect the OPP will bid 5♣ at the other table?
not often

DO I BID?
I don't bid
If my partner has ♠- ♥87 ♦KJ7 ♣AKQJ9652
he will probably win but wouldn't you bid 5♣ on 1♠ with such a hand?


As the hand really was, I bid also 5♣ because I have only 3 loosers, I don't agree 4♣

[mikestar13]

 pooltuna, on 2010-October-25, 11:10, said:

turn the Q♠->Q♥ and I might raise but I only have 1 potential trick and need 2

Bingo. the ♥Q is at least potentially useful, the ♠Q is waste paper.

[Fluffy]

what do you want ♥Q for?, you have the long diamonds to discard partner's hearts, if the diamonds don't work 5♣ won't be a good spot anyway. ♥Q will only be useful if partner has the ♥A and they don't lead a spade but a heart.